CL&P can't guarantee accuracy of its meters

A year ago, Connecticut Light & Power Co. finally admitted the obvious: some of its 1.2 million meters are inaccurate and were inflating customers' bills, a fact its officials had denied for years as they sought to save money by refusing thousands of requests for meter testing.

A few months later, under pressure from consumers, the legislature, the attorney general, state public utility regulators and Watchdog columns, CL&P conceded that some of its meters have even more perplexing problems. They suffer from erratic behavior - meaning that sometimes they will measure the amount of electricity used accurately and at other times not.

CL&P insists that this phenomenon only affects a few meters a year and that most of the erratic meters are discovered by the company. But Roderick S. Kalbfleisch, who supervises all meter issues, said this month that the company can't guarantee it can detect all erratic meters or even all meters that regularly register more electricity than used.

Kalbfleisch, in a meeting with CL&P President Raymond Necci and myself, said CL&P first noticed the problem of erratic meters six years ago when it began buying new digital units. Working with the manufacturer, they discovered extreme heat, cold or electrical spikes could cause meters to become erratic.

The problem was believed to have been solved back then, Kalbfleisch said, adding that CL&P learned how to spot most of these meters.

However, every once in a while the company would find - either through its testing or from a customer complaint - an erratic meter. It was only after Watchdog columns pressured state regulators to investigate CL&P meters last year that there was a concerted effort to keep track of the number of erratic meters found, CL&P officials said.

Until that meeting earlier this month at Northeast Utilities headquarters in Berlin, the company had no intention of notifying customers of the potential problem in the future.

Necci also had no intention of requiring his company to perform intensive computer analysis of customers' bills, beyond what state regulators had demanded as a minimum step.

Such analysis, he agreed, could determine whether these problems are as small as the company claims or is larger. But he said it would also require a lot more work to determine whether it was a change of use by the customer or the change in the meter that caused the reduction in meter readings.

It was only after I told Necci that I would write a column on this issue that he said he would consider communicating the issue directly to his customers. He says he is now studying whether to order the more extensive analysis.

Necci's position is that, once his company confirmed to state regulators about erratic meters late last year, it had become public knowledge and he had no responsibility to also communicate it to his customers, even those whose meters turned out to be erratic.

State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who last June began an investigation of CL&P's meters and customer service issues in response to Watchdog columns, said Tuesday that he is not satisfied the company is doing enough to find faulty meters.

Based on data provided by CL&P and customer complaints to his office, Blumenthal said he believes that state regulators need to once again look at how CL&P is handing meter testing and whether more tests should be conducted by independent firms.

CL&P's position is that there are three major safety nets that will catch virtually all malfunctioning meters: *Its regular, random testing of meters. Meter testing requested by customers, all now being honored. *A computer program that alerts customer service if there is sharp up or down use of electricity. *The new state mandated analysis of accounts in which newly requested and installed meters resulted in a drop of more than 15 percent.

Two customers - a Simsbury family and an upscale West Hartford condo complex - are examples that show that the safety nets have large holes.

Dale Barsness of Weatogue has two meters, one for his electric water heater and another for the rest of the electrical system in his home.

Since 1999, Barsness had suspected his meter readings were too high. He said he asked in writing for a meter test but was refused. It was only after Watchdog columns last year disclosed wholesale disregard of state laws requiring such tests that CL&P is back full time in the meter testing business.

Both meters tested accurate last year.

But the family's usage immediately dropped by about 10 percent each month.

He said he kept asking CL&P representatives why his new meters showed a large reduction in use, "but all they would do is stutter around," Barsness said.

He then demanded restitution. In the end, CL&P calculated that Barsness was probably overcharged for more than 9,000 kilowatt hours (the amount of electricity an average home uses in 15 months) since 1999. He was recently given $1,400 by the company. CL&P refused to go back beyond 1999 to review his bills.

Barsness' case shows that it's important for CL&P to study the impact all new meters have on customer bills, not just those who have a reduction of at least 15 percent. The Barsness family would have fallen through this net.

The second case involves the Grosvenor House Association, a condo complex on Prospect Avenue in West Hartford, near Elizabeth Park.

The condo association complained last winter to CL&P that the readings from the meter in an enclosed garage were suddenly two to three times higher than normal. When a new meter was installed this spring, readings immediately returned to normal. The old meter tested accurate, CL&P told the association.

The association is asking for more than $4,000 in rebates, and so far CL&P says its meter did not overcharge them.

This case shows that CL&P's service department did not pick up on the wide swing in meter readings. It also shows that CL&P had little interest in working with the association until the association asked for my help and I contacted Necci and the attorney general's office.

As of last week, CL&P still has not figured out what happened or what it might do to satisfy the complex.

Despite these examples and holes in the safety net, there is no question that in the last year CL&P has brought much of its customer service up to a level of what is expected of well-run regulated monopolies, such as United Illuminating in southern Connecticut.

It is also clear that top company executives still don't understand that to regain their credibility they have to insure all customers that their bills will be accurate - not just almost all.

As it now stands, CL&P customers need to closely watch their bills to make sure they are accurate.

One thing for sure, though: CL&P needs no lessons in hutzpah. It attempted to convince state regulators that customers should pay for a series of its billing problems because of a computer glitch that resulted in about 2,400 unsent bills.

CL&P, with a straight face, asked the regulators to have its customers pick up the tab for the cost of handling customer complaints, attending state hearings and billing related to the error.

Thankfully, the regulators this month told CL&P to get lost. They need to take that position more often.

Tags:

1 Comments

Thank you for this article. Texas is now experiencing these same problems, and the folks who call about it are coming just short of abuse by TXU/Oncor. The excuses given to us (many on our street with problems) are insane.

It is interesting to note that we have also uncovered the same problems in CT, NC, TN, FL and India in 2005. I think I'm leaving some out, but you get the picture.

We were not asked if we wanted this new system or informed we were getting it or that it was installed. The first bill after install was our wake-up call, and now we read that we will be charged $2.35/month for 11 YEARS to pay for this meter. TXU told PUC it would cost us appx $150, but do the calcs.

The meter has doubled, tripled and quadrupled our bills, and we will rattle every cage there is until we get resolution to this problem.

We have spent extraordinary amts of time researching and fighting this, so maybe we should send THEM a bill for our efforts!

ABOUT

With the help of hundreds of readers we have won many victories for consumers in Connecticut and sometimes nationally over the past 20 months through the Watchdog columns. Through the blog I will be able to post your reaction to columns, get advice from you ... read more